This account is pending registration confirmation. Please click on the link within the confirmation email previously sent you to complete registration.Need a new registration confirmation email? Click here

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the purchasers of the American Depository Shares (“ADSs”) of Veolia Environnement (“Veolia” or the “Company”) (NYSE:
VE), during the period April 27, 2007 through August 4, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Complaint”).

The complaint charges Veolia and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Veolia, together with its subsidiaries, provides environmental management services to individuals, public authorities, and industrial and commercial services customers worldwide.

The Complaint alleges, that throughout the Class Period, Veolia issued false and misleading financial statements that were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). Specifically, it is alleged that the Company failed to timely record impairments to its goodwill and improperly overstated the operating results for its Marine Services business during the Class Period. Indeed, the Company admitted that its previous financial reports for fiscal years 2007-2010 were materially false and misleading and, because of fraud in its Marine Services business, overstated by at least €90 million.

In addition, Veolia failed to timely record an impairment charge for its Transport business unit in Morocco, its Environmental Services business in Egypt, and its Marine Services business in the United States and in Southern Europe. Veolia’s revenues were also being hampered by the renewal of some of its major concession contracts. The foregoing shows that Veolia lacked adequate internal controls, and therefore defendants were unable to ascertain the Company’s true value, and that defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Veolia and its business prospects.